Plaintiff, 13-cv-7948 (AJN) On February 27, 2015, Defendants in this action made an oral motion for a mistrial based
|
|
- Shanon Paul
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Magnesium Corporation of America et al v. The Renco Group, Inc. et al Doc. 325 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED Lee E. Buchwald, -v- The Renco Group, et al., Plaintiff, 13-cv-7948 (AJN) ORDER Defendants. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On February 27, 2015, Defendants in this action made an oral motion for a mistrial based on an alleged inconsistent verdict after the jury returned a unanimous verdict and immediately after, not before, the jury was dismissed on the consent of all parties. The Court denied that motion. Tr. at Nevertheless, Defendants have submitted a letter arguing that judgment should not be entered in this matter until the claimed inconsistencies in the verdict are addressed, either by entering judgment in favor of Defendants, or ordering a new trial. The Court addressed the claimed inconsistency in the verdict by orally denying Defendants' motion for a mistrial when Defendants raised it immediately after the jury was dismissed. This order elaborates the Court's grounds for denying that motion, and explains why Defendants' claimed inconsistency will not stand as an impediment to entry of judgment consistent with the jury's verdict. I. Background Although most pertinent to this discussion is the sequences of events that followed the jury's return of a unanimous verdict, some additional background on the procedural development of the jury instructions and verdict form are required. 1 Dockets.Justia.com
2 On the evening of February 19, 2015, the Court distributed a draft jury charge and special verdict form to the parties in advance of the charging conference scheduled for the next day. The charging conference lasted the full day of Friday, February 20, 2015, and continued for several hours on Monday, February 23, On this first day of the charging conference, the parties addressed the question of whether federal law regarding fraudulent transfers and New York state law of fraudulent conveyance could be addressed in a single jury charge, or set of jury charges, because they were substantially the same. After the Court asked the parties if there was a conflict between state and federal law, Defendants' counsel responded: Fair consideration in some respects is a broader concept, which is why I made that observation, than reasonably equivalent value. So it has a broader legal definition that reasonably equivalent value under the New York statute. The New York statute is anachronistic across the country because it is one of four states that doesn't cover the Fraudulent Transfer Act and it has a different meaning and can be read more broadly. What we are essentially talking about in this case is whether there is reasonably equivalent value so that from a practical perspective I believe we can harmonize things, but I believe there is a conflict in that component of the statute. Tr at 18-25, 2500 at 1-4. While this exchange was facially about the difference between the laws of New York and Utah, Defendant also represented that the bankruptcy code and Utah law are "fundamentally the same" and that they "coincide[]." Tr at 7; Tr at 11. Later, when discussing the concept of reasonably equivalent value under federal law and New York law, Defendants' counsel stated that "the New York statute talks about it [reasonably equivalent value] in a different vernacular and with some different ideas." Tr at 1-2. He fmiher stated that the bankruptcy code contains "a slightly more pro transferee set of tests, as 2
3 opposed to the New York statute." Tr at 25, 2510 at 1. The Comi provided the parties the opportunity to file letter briefs about the differences between New York, Utah, and federal law over the weekend following the conference, and in their letter Defendants states that "[u]nlike the UFTA [Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act], Section 273 of the New York Debtor Creditor Law imposes a 'good faith' requirement." Dkt. No. 305 at 1 n. l. On February 23, 2015, the Court distributed versions of the draft jury charge and special verdict form reflecting the changes made at the February 20, 2015 conference. When the charging conference resumed later in the day on February 23, the Court explained that its revised charge would instruct the jury on both federal and New York law, because federal law and Utah law were essentially the same. The Court would thus be able to reserve any choice-of-law questions until after the verdict, and would need to reach them only if Defendants whose liability was subject to a choice-of-law dispute were found liable under New York but not federal law. Tr at 15-25, 2601at1-4. At that time, neither party objected to the procedure, or made an argument that the New York and federal charges were redundant. Indeed, the solution largely mirrored Defendants' proposal from February 20, where they suggested that it would not be necessary to repeat the federal and Utah instructions twice, see Tr at 9-11, but did not state that a New York instruction would be entirely unnecessary, because they agreed that New York law governed transfers from Renea Metals to The Renea Group, Inc., see Tr at 19-25, 2497 at 1-5. The Court also distributed drafts of the special verdict form in advance of the February 20 and February 23 conferences. On both drafts, the jury was instructed to consider the question of whether Defendants committed fraudulent conveyances under New York law regardless of whether the jury found fraudulent transfers under the bankruptcy code. Indeed, in the drafts sent to the parties before each day of the charging conference, as well as the final version of the form that went to the jury, the jury was explicitly instructed to consider fraudulent conveyance under New York law immediately even if they determined that MagCorp and Renea Metals did not meet the tests for insolvency, inadequate capitalization, or inability to pay debts under federal 3
4 law. In all three versions, the jury was told to proceed to the question about New York law if they answered "No" to all of the federal-law questions about whether the companies were insolvent. Neither party objected or otherwise suggested changes to this general procedure, nor was any argument made that it would be unnecessary to consider fraudulent conveyance under New York law if the jury answered the insolvency, umeasonably small capital, and inability to pay debts questions entirely in the negative. The parties gave their summations on February 24, 2015, and the Court charged the jury on the morning of February 25, The jury returned a verdict on February 27, 2015, that in relevant part found in favor of all Defendants on Plaintiff's claim for fraudulent transfers under the bankruptcy code, but finding Defendants Rennert, Legge, Thayer, Ogaard, Brown, Kaplan, and the Renea Group, Inc. liable for fraudulent conveyances under New York law. The jury assessed damages only against Defendants Rennert and the Renea Group, Inc. After the jury indicated that they had reached a verdict but before the jury was brought in and the verdict was read to the parties, the Court told counsel: When I finish reading, assuming everyone agrees that it was their verdict, I will ask if there is any reason that I cannot dismiss the jury. So that will be an opportunity to identify if there is anything in the verdict form itself that might require clarification. Assuming not, I will dismiss the jury. Tr at 22-25, 3055 at 1-2. While the Court was reading the verdict, the foreperson indicated that he had made an incorrect transcription of the jury's answer to a question about punitive damages. Tr at 18. After finishing the reading, the Court asked the jurors to put that question aside for a moment, and polled the jurors regarding the remainder of their answers; each indicated assent to the verdict. Tr at Before sending the jury back to reach a unanimous conclusion and indicate the correct amount of punitive damages it intended to assess, the Court asked counsel at sidebar, "Is there anything else on [the verdict form] that you identify as a reason, once we resolve this, that the jury cannot be dismissed?" Tr at Both parties indicated that there was not. Tr at
5 After the jury had returned to the jury room to resume its deliberations on the punitive damages questions, the Court asked counsel if there was anything to take up. Defendants' counsel responded, "Not until after you dismiss the jury, your Honor." Tr. 3061at The jury returned with a unanimous answer to the punitive damages question soon thereafter, and the Court again polled the jurors as to their agreement with that answer, "as well as the entire verdict[.]" Tr at All jurors again indicated that they agreed. Tr at 2. The Court again asked counsel if there was any reason the jury could not be dismissed at that time, and again both parties indicated that there was not. Tr at 3-6. The jury was thereupon dismissed. Immediately after the jury was dismissed, Defendants moved for a mistrial based on a "dramatic inconsistency in the verdict." Tr at 5-7. Defendants' counsel then represented that the jury's findings in Defendants' favor on solvency, adequacy of capital, and the ability to pay debts as they came due in Questions 1-3 on the special verdict form presented a "radical and irreconcilable inconsistency" in the verdict. Tr at According to Defendants' counsel, the grounds for their motion for a mistrial was the "abundant facial irreconcilability" of the verdict. Tr at 6-8 (emphasis added). And yet that "abundant facial irreconcilability" was not raised with the Court prior to the dismissal of the jury. The Court orally denied Defendants' motion, noting that the parties had just moments earlier consented to dismiss the jury before Defendants' counsel raised the possibility of an inconsistent verdict. Tr at 1-5. It is this oral ruling that is elaborated upon below. II. Waiver Defendants' argument for a mistrial on the grounds of an inconsistent verdict was effectively waived three times over. First, any such motion related to an inconsistent verdict had to have been made before the jury was dismissed. Second, Defendants consented to both the instructions and special verdict form that required the jury to consider fraudulent conveyance defined differently under New York law even if they did not find insolvency, unreasonably small capital, or inability to pay debts under the federal definitions. And third, Defendants agreed to 5
6 the jury charge that they now say permitted an inconsistent finding, and indeed represented to the Court that New York offered a more Plaintiff-friendly standard than federal law. A. Consent to Dismiss the Jury The Second Circuit repeatedly has made clear that objections based on alleged inconsistencies in a verdict must be made before the jury is dismissed. See Litras v. Long Island R.R., 226 F. App'x 31, 33 (2d Cir. 2007) (summary order); Kosmynka v. Polaris Indus., 462 F.3d 74, 83 (2d Cir. 2006); Haskell v. Kaman Corp., 743 F.2d 113, 123 (2d Cir. 1984). Defendants made no attempt to raise this issue between the rendering of either the initial verdict or the jury's return of the verdict on punitive damages and the jury's dismissal, despite being given the opportunity to raise the issue at both junctures. See Tr at 16-18; Tr at 3-4. Indeed, the jury was permitted to return to deliberation on punitive damages after the first verdict, and dismissed after the supplementary verdict, with both parties' consent each time. Tr at 19-20; Tr at 5-6. Defendants' failure to make any application whatsoever before the jury was dismissed regarding the existence of an inconsistent verdict means that the issue has not been preserved. Whether intentional or not, Defendants' conduct here-to wait until immediately after the jury was dismissed, and then move for a mistrial on grounds available to them while the jury was still impaneled-demonstrates the precise reason why the issue must be raised before dismissal or be waived. Raising the potential of an inconsistent verdict before the jury is dismissed allows the Court an opportunity to address any real inconsistency with the jury and seek clarification. The waiver rule is in place to require counsel to seek clarification and cure when that is still possible without the duplication of the enormous resources just spent on a substantial trial. Foregoing such an opportunity, as counsel did here, is inefficient at best and devious at worst: it denies "the court and the opposing party the opportunity to correct an error in the conduct of the trial," Kosmynka, 462 F.3d at 83 (quoting Barry v. Maglass, 432 N.E.2d 125, 127 (N.Y. 1981)), and presents an opportunity for "misuse of Rule 49 procedures," Haskell, 743 F.3d at 123 (quoting Skillin v. Kimball, 643 F.2d 19, 20 (1st Cir. 1981). This unambiguous waiver rule is 6
7 sufficient grounds alone to deny Defendants' motion for a mistrial based on a claimed inconsistency in the verdict. B. Consent to the Special Verdict Form In addition to consenting to dismiss the jury before raising the possibility of an inconsistent verdict, Defendants also consented to the special verdict form that they now allege permitted the jury to reach an inconsistent verdict. To preserve objections to the form or substance of a special verdict form, a party must object before the jury has retired to deliberate. See Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 340 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd., 490 F.3d 130, 141 (2d Cir. 2007)). All of the draft special verdict forms provided to the parties, as well as the final special verdict form provided to the jury, directed the jury to proceed to consider whether Defendants had committed fraudulent conveyances under New York law regardless of whether they found in Defendants' or Plaintiffs favor on earlier questions related to insolvency. See Dkt. No. 304 (blank version of final verdict form). Defendants raised no objections to this aspect of the verdict form, which was used with the parties' consent. Defendant's claim that the verdict was "abundantly facial[ly] irreconcilable," Tr. 3065, makes clear that an objection to the instructions on the verdict form requiring the jury to consider fraudulent conveyances under New York law regardless of its conclusion on solvency under federal law could have been made long before the jury retired to deliberate. Under Defendants' theory, if the jury answered "no" to all portions of Questions 1-3, they should not have been permitted to answer Question 7, which the verdict form required that they answer. But Defendants never made this argument, despite both charging conference drafts and the final version of the verdict form containing this alleged "facial" problem. C. Agreement as to the Law Finally, though it is also not necessary to the Court's decision to deny Defendants' motion for a mistrial, the Court notes that the Defendants' position at the charging conference was that there were material differences between federal bankruptcy law and New York law such 7
8 that the Court was correct to charge the jury separately on their elements. See Tr. 2509; Dkt. No Moreover, the jury instructions told the jury that insolvency had a "specific definition" under New York law: "Under New York law, an entity is insolvent when the present fair saleable value of its assets is less than the amount that will be required to pay his probable liability on his existing debts as they become absolute and matured." See Dkt. No. 303 at 19. Defendants did not object to this aspect of the instructions. Defendants now argue that, despite the admitted difference in language between the New York and federal definitions of bankruptcy in the jury charge, the instructions were substantively identical and did not permit unique findings. This is a precise example of a matter that should have been raised when the Court was exhorting the parties to find a unified instruction governing all relevant federal and state law of fraudulent transfer and fraudulent conveyance, and to avoid redundancies in the instructions on these counts. In fact, Defendant never once suggested that the charge on the New York law of fraudulent conveyances should not have contained the separate definition of insolvency under New York law that was given to the jury. Defendants argue that they were willing to agree to a unified charge on the fraudulent transfer and fraudulent conveyance claims, and that only the definition of "reasonably equivalent value" prevented an agreed-upon unified charge from being presented to the jury. Even so, the differences in New York and federal law prevented the giving of a unified charge, and it was abundantly clear to Defendants that the jury would be charged separately on federal and New York law in the final charge. Despite knowing this would be the case, Defendants raised no objection, nor even hinted at an argument that insolvency should not have been defined differently under New York law in the final charge. Without needing to decide whether any actual inconsistency may have resulted, then, the Court notes that Defendants consented to language indicating that a consistent verdict might still obtain despite different results under New York and federal law. Therefore, even if Defendants had not waived their argument that the verdict is inconsistent by failing to raise it before the jury was discharged and by agreeing to the special verdict form, it is dubious at best that an argument 8
9 about inconsistency could succeed based on the language oflnstruction No. 13. See Dkt. No. 303at19. III. Entry of Judgment Defendants have now cited several case for the proposition that the Court may not enter judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b)(3) because the verdict form contained claimed inconsistencies. The Court must first note that Rule 49(b)(3) becomes relevant in a situation where the jury's answer to a general verdict question is at odds with underlying special verdict questions. That is not the case here; Questions 1-3 on the verdict form, which addressed the grounds for finding insolvency predicate to a fraudulent transfer claim under federal bankruptcy law, were not special verdict questions leading unto a general verdict regarding fraudulent conveyances under New York law. These were separate counts, and never argued by counsel or presented to the jury as anything otherwise. Indeed, it was Defendants' suggestion to eliminate language on the verdict form referring to Questions 1-3 as questions of "insolvency," and instead to bring all three questions under the federal "Fraudulent Transfers" claim. Tr at 3-8. Moreover, the cases Defendants have cited do not undermine the rule that claimed inconsistencies not raised before the jury is dismissed are waived. They involve scenarios where the objection was made before the jury was dismissed, see Armstrong ex rel. Armstrong v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 425 F.3d 126, 135 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Defense counsel pointed out the error to the jury..."), 1 or where the court itself resubmitted inconsistently answered questions to the jury and a party objected to the jury's reconsideration. Turchio v. DIS A/S Den Norske Africa, 509 F.2d 101, 106 (2d Cir. 1974) ("When the jury failed at first to answer any of the questions put to it, the comi acted within its rights in asking the jury to deliberate a second 1 To the extent Armstrong considers the defendant's failure to raise inconsistencies in a third special verdict as a waiver and goes on to find fundamental error, it did so because the instructions given were directly at odds with a clear statement of the law. See Armstrong, 425 F.3d at 136 ("Section 2805-d clearly prohibits recovery if a reasonable and properly informed person would have consented, but the verdict sheet instead made such a reasonable person's consent a prerequisite to recovery."). 9
10 and third time to obtain answers to the unanswered questions."). To the extent Defendants cast the verdict form as inconsistent under Rule 49(b ), the Second Circuit has held that failure to challenge the inconsistency before the jury is dismissed is waiver in the Rule 49(b) context. See Lavoie v. Pac. Press & Shear Co., 975 F.2d 48, 54 (2d Cir. 1992). 2 To find waiver inapplicable here would entirely undermine the clear and consistent waiver rule articulated by the Second Circuit, because Defendants' argument would require a court to conclude that any entry of judgment on a claimed inconsistent verdict is improper. That clearly is not the case; the argument can be waived, and Defendants have done so here. Moreover, the circumstances weigh particularly strongly in favor of waiver here, where the timing of Defendants' motion for a mistrial- after a significant amount of time had passed since the initial reading of the jury's verdict yet within only moments of the jury's dismissalindicates that Defendants were fully aware of the alleged implications of the jury's answers to Questions 1-3 and 7 when the jury was still impaneled. Counsel's statement after the initial verdict was read and while the jury returned to its deliberations on punitive damages that Defendants would not have any matters to raise "until after [the Court] dismiss[ed] the jury" indicates that Defendants consciously chose to forego presenting any application to the Court until after the jury was dismissed. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' oral motion for a mistrial made after the jury was dismissed, and their request that the Court refrain from entry of judgment on the grounds of a claimed inconsistency in the verdict, are DENIED. SO ORDERED. 2 While Defendants have cited cases suggesting that other circuits may not subject Rule 49(b) objections to waiver analysis, see L.A. Nut House v. Holiday Hardware Corp., 825 F.2d 1351, (9th Cir. 1987), such analysis is patently at odds with the Second Circuit's treatment of Rule 49(b ). 10
11 Dated:,2015 New York, New York 11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK THE RENCO GROUP, INC. 29th One Rockefeller Plaza, Floor Index No. New York, New York 10020 Plaintiff, -against- SUMMONS KAYE SCHOLER LLP 55th 250
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY FIRST FEDERAL BANK OF OHIO, CASE NO O P I N I O N
[Cite as First Fed. Bank of Ohio v. Angelini, 2010-Ohio-2300.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY FIRST FEDERAL BANK OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-09-03 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
More informationPlaintiff-Appellant, 04 Civ (KMW) -against- OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff-Appellant John S. Pereira, as Chapter 7 Trustee
In Re: Trace International Holdings, Inc. et al Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------X In re: TRACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No DOROTHY HENDERSON; ROBIN HOWARD, Appellants CHARTIERS VALLEY SCHOOL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 04-1593 DOROTHY HENDERSON; ROBIN HOWARD, Appellants v. CHARTIERS VALLEY SCHOOL Appeal from the United States District Court for
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed0// Page of 0 CITY OF OAKLAND, v. Northern District of California Plaintiff, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; MELINDA HAAG, U.S. Attorney for the Northern
More informationUSDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv TLS document 12 filed 06/26/15 page 1 of 13
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00098-TLS document 12 filed 06/26/15 page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION ARLINGTON CAPITAL LLC, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) CAUSE
More informationUSDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED~;AUG
Case 1:12-cv-07887-AJN Document 20 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------)( ALE)( AND
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Lee v. Anasti Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION IN RE: C/A No.: 3:10-196 Gina Anasti Lee, ORDER Debtor. This matter comes before the court
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. No. 12 C 1856 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Fish v. Hennessy et al Doc. 161 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM A. FISH, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH J. HENNESSY, No. 12 C 1856 Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland
More informationDefendant Mitchell Stern (Stern) moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/10/2015 11:54 PM INDEX NO. 653564/2014 2/10/2015 Peckar & Abramson, P.C. v Lyford Holdings, Ltd. (2014 NY Slip Op 50294(U)) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2015
More informationHEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict
HEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict A jury verdict, where the jury was not polled and the verdict was not hearkened, is not properly recorded and is therefore a nullity.
More informationADVISORS BEWARE: BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT FLORIDA HOMESTEAD CREDITOR EXEMPTION IS NOT ALLOWED FOR RESIDENCE TRANSFERRED TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST.
Page 1 of6 " «om ADVISORS BEWARE: BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT FLORIDA HOMESTEAD CREDITOR EXEMPTION IS NOT ALLOWED FOR RESIDENCE TRANSFERRED TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST. See, In Re BOSONETTO, 271 B.R. 403
More informationWASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL PROCEDURES (Revised June, 2012)
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL PROCEDURES (Revised June, 2012) 1 I. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE A. FILING PAPERS All documents submitted for filing should be hole-punched at the head of the document with
More information_._..._------_._ _.._... _..._..._}(
Case 1:12-cv-02626-KBF Document 20 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------.---------------_..._.-..---------------_.}( SDM' DOCUMENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-20556 Document: 00514715129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CARLOS FERRARI, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER
Criminal Action No. 05-cr-00545-MSK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Plaintiff, JOSEPH P. NACCHIO, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER DEFENDANT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Taylor et al v. DLI Properties, L.L.C, d/b/a FORD FIELD et al Doc. 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Melissa Taylor and Douglas St. Pierre, v. Plaintiffs, DLI
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-0-rsl Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 MONEY MAILER, LLC, v. WADE G. BREWER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, Defendant. WADE G. BREWER, v. Counterclaim
More informationMantilla v Bartyzel 2016 NY Slip Op 30649(U) April 15, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Janice A.
Mantilla v Bartyzel 2016 NY Slip Op 30649(U) April 15, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 702046/13 Judge: Janice A. Taylor Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationCase 1:06-cv KMW -DCF Document 696 Filed 04/20/11 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-05936-KMW -DCF Document 696 Filed 04/20/11 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------x ARISTA
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND THOMAS J. SHAW, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BECTON DICKINSON, Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1567 Appeal from the United
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:
Case 2:17-cv-02893-JTM-DEK Document 26 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SIMON FINGER, M.D. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 17-2893 HARRY JACOBSON ET AL. SECTION:
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-000-fjm Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 WO Krystal Energy Co. Inc., vs. Plaintiff, The Navajo Nation, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CV -000-PHX-FJM
More informationCase Doc 1137 Filed 02/26/19 Entered 02/26/19 09:02:57 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 14
Document Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA In re:, Liquidating Debtor. Chapter 11 Case No. 17-30112, vs. Plaintiff, East Lion Corporation; and The CIT Group/Commercial
More informationCase 5:17-cv LHK Document 98 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 5
Case :-cv-00-lhk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FRANKIE ANTOINE, Case No. -CV-00-LHK v. Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PUNITIVE DAMAGES;
More informationCase 2:17-cv DB Document 48 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:17-cv-00207-DB Document 48 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION HOMELAND MUNITIONS, LLC, BIRKEN STARTREE HOLDINGS, CORP., KILO CHARLIE,
More informationForum Non Conveniens and Chapter 15 Bankruptcy. Tyler Levine J.D. Candidate 2018
Forum Non Conveniens and Chapter 15 Bankruptcy 2017 Volume IX No. 16 Forum Non Conveniens and Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Tyler Levine J.D. Candidate 2018 Cite as: Forum Non Conveniens and Chapter 15 Bankruptcy,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Diab v. Textron, Incorporated Doc. 98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GABRIAL DIAB, Case No. 07-11681 v. Plaintiff, HONORABLE SEAN F. COX United States District
More informationCase 2:12-cv BSJ Document 60 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:12-cv-00058-BSJ Document 60 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 9 MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR LLC David C. Castleberry [11531] dcastleberry@mc2b.com Christopher M. Glauser [12101] cglauser@mc2b.com 136
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * KIRK and AMY HENRY, ) ) 2:08-CV PMP-GWF ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ) )
Case :0-cv-00-PMP -GWF Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * KIRK and AMY HENRY, ) ) :0-CV-00-PMP-GWF ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ) ) vs. ) ) FREDRICK RIZZOLO aka
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 2:16-cv-02814-JFB Document 9 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 223 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK N o 16-CV-2814 (JFB) RAYMOND A. TOWNSEND, Appellant, VERSUS GERALYN
More informationlaw and fact are reviewed de novo. In Re Cox. 493 F.3d n. 9 (11th Cir.
Orcutt v. Crawford Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION BRUCE ORCUTT, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 8:10-CV-1925-T-17 JIMMIE M. CRAWFORD, Appellee. ORDER This cause is
More informationCase: 4:15-cv RWS Doc. #: 30 Filed: 05/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 183
Case: 4:15-cv-00464-RWS Doc. #: 30 Filed: 05/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 183 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION GRYPHON INVESTMENTS III, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No.
More informationCase jal Doc 19 Filed 10/16/17 Entered 10/16/17 14:15:06 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Case 16-10010-jal Doc 19 Filed 10/16/17 Entered 10/16/17 14:15:06 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY IN RE: MISTY S. LYNN CASE NO. 16-10010(1(7 Debtor(s MEMORANDUM-OPINION
More information1. The definition of insider.
To: Drafting Committee, Advisors and Observers, Amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act From: Edwin E. Smith, Chair Kenneth C. Kettering, Reporter Date: August 20. 2013 Re: Developments at and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
1 1 1 PATRICIA BUTLER and WESLEY BUTLER, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs, HARVEST MANAGEMENT SUB, LLC d/b/a HOLIDAY RETIREMENT, Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION
More informationSECURITY AGREEMENT :v2
SECURITY AGREEMENT In consideration of one or more loans, letters of credit or other financial accommodation made, issued or extended by JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (hereinafter called the "Bank"), the undersigned
More informationPetitioners, 10-CV-5256 (KMW) (DCF) -against- OPINION & ORDER GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO PEOPLE S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X THAI LAO LIGNITE (THAILAND) CO., LTD. & HONGSA LIGNITE (LAO PDR) CO., LTD., Petitioners,
More informationUnited States Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division. Debtors. Chapter 11 /
United States Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division In re: Case No. 05-55927-R Debtors. Chapter 11 Plaintiff, Adv. No. 07-05587 v. Track III Valeo, Valeo Vision Mazamet, Valeo
More informationTrial Motions. Motions in Limine. Civil Perspective
Trial Motions and Motions in Limine from the Civil Perspective New York State Bar Association Young Lawyers Section Trial Academy 2016 Cornell Law School - Ithaca, New York Presented by: Michael P. O Brien
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Blankenship v. Shinn et al Doc. 122 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MARK A. BLANKENSHIP, FED. REG. #83718-022, CIV. NO. 14-00168 LEK-KJM Plaintiff, vs. WARDEN D. SHINN, CASE
More informationConflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law. Janet Savage 1
Conflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law Janet Savage 1 Plaintiffs suing their former employers for wrongful discharge or employment discrimination
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 07/13/2007 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationmg Doc 6 Filed 02/16/12 Entered 02/16/12 11:22:25 Main Document Pg 1 of 16
Pg 1 of 16 CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP Counsel for the Petitioners 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 (212) 408-5100 Howard Seife, Esq. Andrew Rosenblatt, Esq. Francisco Vazquez, Esq. UNITED STATES
More informationCase 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:12-cv-04873-CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TO WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR
More information2:16-ap Doc#: 1 Filed: 10/06/16 Entered: 10/06/16 16:16:02 Page 1 of 17
2:16-ap-01097 Doc#: 1 Filed: 10/06/16 Entered: 10/06/16 16:16:02 Page 1 of 17 B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET (Instructions on Reverse) ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER (Court Use
More informationEileen O'Donnell v. Gale Simon
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-28-2010 Eileen O'Donnell v. Gale Simon Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-1241 Follow
More informationCase pwb Doc 350 Filed 02/17/17 Entered 02/17/17 16:16:38 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 19
Document Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION In re: ) Chapter 11 ) ASTROTURF, LLC, ) Case No. 16-41504-PWB ) ) Debtor. ) ) DEBTOR S SUPPLEMENTAL
More informationScarpati v Kim 2013 NY Slip Op 30013(U) January 3, 2013 Sup Ct, Richmond County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Philip G. Minardo Republished from
Scarpati v Kim 2013 NY Slip Op 30013(U) January 3, 2013 Sup Ct, Richmond County Docket Number: 101118/2008 Judge: Philip G. Minardo Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
More informationAMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS SALT LAKE EDUCATION FOUNDATION A UTAH NONPROFIT CORPORATION
AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF SALT LAKE EDUCATION FOUNDATION A UTAH NONPROFIT CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I OFFICES...1 ARTICLE II MEMBERS...1 Section 2.1. Members...1 Section 2.2. Associates...1
More information2:13-mj DUTY Doc # 16 Filed 08/13/13 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 256 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:13-mj-30484-DUTY Doc # 16 Filed 08/13/13 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 256 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Criminal Case No. 13-30484
More informationJudicial estoppel. - Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2017)
ALABAMA BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY HODGEPODGE Bankruptcy at the Beach 2018 Commercial Panel Judge Henry Callaway Jennifer S. Morgan, Law Clerk to Judge Callaway Judicial estoppel - Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp.,
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-0-WHA Document Filed0// Page of 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 No. C 0-0 WHA ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. / FINAL
More informationPRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. UNITED LEASING CORPORATION OPINION BY v. Record No. 090254 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. February 25, 2010
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Harvey L. Jay, III, Judge. April 18, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D15-2337 Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. MARY BROWN, as personal representative of the Estate of Rayfield Brown, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
More informationUtah Court Rules on Trial Motions Francis J. Carney
Revised July 10, 2015 NOTE 18 December 2015: The trial and post-trial motions have been amended, effective 1 May 2016. See my blog post for 18 December 2015. This paper will be revised to reflect those
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2091 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Glenn Verser, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey Barfield, Douglas Gooding, Ryan Robinson, and Chris W. Davis, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal
More informationIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 06 CVS 6776
Maloney v. Alliance Dev. Group, L.L.C., 2006 NCBC 11 NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 06 CVS 6776 ROBERT BRIAN MALONEY Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Don Henley et al v. Charles S Devore et al Doc. 0 0 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP JACQUELINE C. CHARLESWORTH (pro hac vice) JCharlesworth@mofo.com CRAIG B. WHITNEY (CA SBN ) CWhitney@mofo.com TANIA MAGOON (pro
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:10-cv-05897 Document #: 90 Filed: 01/20/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1224 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DENNIS DIXON, JR., Plaintiff, v.
More informationLLC, was removed to this Court from state court in December (Docket No. 1). At that
Leong v. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Doc. 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X OEI HONG LEONG, Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:16-cv-06848-CAS-GJS Document 17 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:268 Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
More informationJUROR INSTRUCTIONS ALONG W/ QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR POTENTIAL JURORS
JUROR INSTRUCTIONS ALONG W/ QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR POTENTIAL JURORS As a Juror, there are certain responsibilities you will be asked to fulfill. A Juror must be prompt. A trial cannot begin or continue
More informationCase 5:07-cv F Document 7 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 16
Case 5:07-cv-00262-F Document 7 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:07-CV-00262-F KIDDCO, INC., ) Appellant, ) )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division)
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division) In re: ) ) Chapter 7 TSI HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. ) ) Case No. 17-30132 (Jointly Administered) Debtors.
More informationThis action comes before the Court following defendants removal of plaintiff s
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK B.D. COOKE & PARTNERS LIMITED, as Assignee of Citizens Company of New York (in liquidation), -against- CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S, LONDON,
More informationCase MFW Doc 263 Filed 05/02/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE : : : : : : :
Case 17-10111-MFW Doc 263 Filed 05/02/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re ATOPTECH, INC., 1 Debtor. Chapter 11 Case No. 17-10111 (MFW) EMERGENCY MOTION
More informationCase 2:17-cv SVW-AFM Document 39 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:653
Case :-cv-0-svw-afm Document Filed /0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 JEFFREY H. WOOD Acting Assistant Attorney General REBECCA M. ROSS, Trial Attorney (AZ Bar No. 00) rebecca.ross@usdoj.gov DEDRA S. CURTEMAN,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
Case :0-cv-000-RSM Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. EVA ZEMPLENYI, M.D., and EVA ZEMPLENYI, M.D., individually,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TELECOM ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FIBERLIGHT, LLC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-si ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER
More informationCase 1:09-cv PGG Document 648 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 43 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #:
Case 1:09-cv-04346-PGG Document 648 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 43 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DATE FILED: September 30, 2013 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
More informationCase 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s), CASE NO.: v. DIVISION:. Defendant(s). / UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CAUSE FOR TRIAL AND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-jvs-dfm Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 SHELBY PHILLIPS, III, et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff(s), UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
More information.. _. SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD, JUDGE: STATE OF OHIO ) )SS: CUYAHOGA COUNTY ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Case No. CR
.. _. STATE OF OHIO SS: CUYAHOGA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff, -vs- CLARENCE BOGAN Defendant. Case No. CR-16-605087 OPINION SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD, JUDGE: The Defendant's,
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 37 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:170
Case: 1:13-cv-06594 Document #: 37 Filed: 03/24/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:170 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION AMERICAN ISLAMIC CENTER, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ILLUMINATION MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 10-C-1120 ALAN RUUD, CHRISTOPHER RUUD, and RUUD LIGHTING, Defendants. DECISION
More informationCase 2:10-cr MHT-WC Document 1907 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT-WC Document 1907 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TechRadium, Inc. v. AtHoc, Inc. et al Doc. 121 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TECHRADIUM, INC., Plaintiff, v. ATHOC, INC., et al., Defendants. NO.
More information4:13-cv TGB-DRG Doc # 39 Filed 04/10/15 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 429 3UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
4:13-cv-10433-TGB-DRG Doc # 39 Filed 04/10/15 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 429 ANITA TOLER, 3UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-10433 GLOBAL COLLEGE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 10-554 ALEX BLUEFORD, VS. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLANT, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered JANUARY 20, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI C O U N T Y C IR C U I T C O U R T, FOURTH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 3:5-cv-00758-LAB-RBB Document 2 Filed 02/06/8 PageID.849 Page of 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 3 4 5 TONY NGUYEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA vs. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al.,
More informationTAKING A CIVIL VERDICT
TAKING A CIVIL VERDICT Adapted from NORTH CAROLINA TRIAL JUDGES BENCH BOOK, SUPERIOR COURT, VOL. 2 (Judicial Authority, Civil Trial and Procedure), Chap. 23 (3d ed.) (Institute of Government 1999) (out
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM *
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MARK MONJE and BETH MONJE, individually and on behalf of their minor
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION KAIST IP US LLC, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:16-CV-01314-JRG-RSP SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al., Defendants. REPORT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
Montano v. Knox County, Tennessee et al (PLR1) Doc. 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ALEJANDRO MONTANO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:17-cv-00411-R Document 17 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA OPTIMUM LABORATORY ) SERVICES LLC, an Oklahoma ) limited liability
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez
King v. Allstate Insurance Company Doc. 242 Civil Action No. 11-cv-00103-WJM-BNB IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez DENNIS W. KING, Colorado resident
More informationCase LSS Doc 322 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 14-10791-LSS Doc 322 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: DYNAVOX, INC., et al., 1 Chapter 11 Case No. 14-10791 (LSS) Debtors. (Jointly
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION PATRICK J. LYNCH AND : DIANE R. LYNCH, : Plaintiffs : : v. : No. 11-0143 : U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, : Defendant : Civil Law
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-11305 Document: 00513646478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED August 22, 2016 RALPH
More informationscc Doc 908 Filed 10/05/12 Entered 10/05/12 15:30:16 Main Document Pg 1 of 8
Pg 1 of 8 Post-Hearing Brief Deadline: October 5, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP Thomas Moers Mayer Adam C. Rogoff P. Bradley O Neill 1177 Avenue of the
More informationSecond Circuit Settles the Meaning of Settlement Payments Under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. November/December 2011
Second Circuit Settles the Meaning of Settlement Payments Under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code November/December 2011 Daniel J. Merrett John H. Chase The powers and protections granted to a bankruptcy
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Appellant, v. Case No. 8:12-cv-2498-T-33 Bankr. No. 8:11-bk CPM ORDER
Fish v. Pasco County Florida Traffic Division et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION IN RE: TERRY LEE FISH, Debtor. / TERRY LEE FISH, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationCase 1:15-cv MSK Document 36 Filed 03/10/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
Case 1:15-cv-00557-MSK Document 36 Filed 03/10/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 Civil Action No. 15-cv-00557-MSK In re: STEVEN E. MUTH, Debtor. STEVEN E. MUTH, v. Appellant, KIMBERLEY KROHN, Appellee. IN THE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WARREN DROOMERS, 1 Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 30, 2005 v No. 253455 Oakland Circuit Court JOHN R. PARNELL, JOHN R. PARNELL & LC No. 00-024779-CK ASSOCIATES,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Whitcher v. Meritain Health Inc. et al Doc. 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CYNTHIA WHITCHER ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 08-cv-634 JPG ) MERITAIN HEALTH, INC., and )
More information1/15/15. THE 2014 AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM VOIDABLE TRANSACTIONS ACT (and, before the amendments, known as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act)
[This paper is to appear in a forthcoming issue of the Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal (2015) and is made available for non-profit legal education purposes with permission.] THE 2014 AMENDMENTS TO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
PIETRYLO et al v. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP Doc. 77 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BRIAN PIETRYLO and DOREEN MARINO, v. Plaintiffs, HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP
More informationFile Name: 16b0002n.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) )
By order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8024-1(b. See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8014-1(c. File Name:
More information